This is a discussion on Rebuttal to Senator Feinstein's Assault Weapons Ban - "Grandfathered Weapons" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I take issue with the whole assault weapons ban but in particular, I am laser focused on the Grandfather weapons requirements as but forth below:
...

I take issue with the whole assault weapons ban but in particular, I am laser focused on the Grandfather weapons requirements as but forth below:

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Owners of legally possessed "grandfathered weapons" have already submitted to a background check and firearm registration with an FFL dealer in their respective States. To have to RESUBMIT to another additional background check that includes fingerprints and blessing of the local LEO is GOING TO FAR!!! For Class III guns, sure, we can continue the Form 4, $200, and LEO....BUT for assault rifles & hand guns w/high capacity magazines??? What will happen when they get you at the ATF check in? The ATF official (Pierce Morgan) will determine whether you have any unpaid child support, parking tickets, outstanding warrants (non-violent of course), or any other petty item in order to confiscate your firearm. You will be forced to part with your "ROCK AND ROLL". And don't forget, your name and address will be posted on the internet map by our friendly newspaper folks in New York just like a child molester. This legislation is designed to extrapolate money from gun owners and fund the liberal anti-gun crusaders like Pierce Morgan.
EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM NEEDS TO WAKE UP

More info just in from NRA:

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

· Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

· Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

· Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

· Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

· Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

· Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

· Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.

· Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

· Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

· Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

· Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

· Contains a larger piece of window dressing than the 1994 ban. Whereas the 1994 ban included a list of approximately 600 rifles and shotguns exempted from the ban by name, the new bill’s list is increased to nearly 1,000 rifles and shotguns. Other than for the 11 detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and one other semi-automatic rifle included in the list, however, the list appears to be pointless, because a separate provision of the bill exempts “any firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.”

Last edited by brookl089; December 28th, 2012 at 01:19 AM.
Reason: Additional Info

I think the point you are missing is that what they (the gun grabbers) want is to make "assault weapons" and "combat pistols" (I figure that will be the new term for any handgun that can hold more than ten rounds) to be NFA weapons, and NFA weapons which can no longer be registered after the effective date (much like machineguns now). There is nothing about the current NFA weapons that makes them in need of registration anymore than the non-NFA weapons out there. Rather than accepting that the current NFA is OK, we need to fight against that, not just defend non-NFA guns. After all, what is it about my 10.5" AR15 that makes it dangerous enough to need registration, but if it was a 16" AR15 it would be OK unregistered?

Many people don't know that the original draft of the National Firearms Act included all handguns in addition to SBRs, SBSs, Machineguns, Silencers, and AOWs. Eventually the act was rewritten to exclude handguns (thankfully, imagine a $200 tax and 6 month wait, plus registration for any handgun purchase). The reason SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs are NFA now is because they were included in the original act to keep people from making handguns out of long guns. There is nothing about any of them that makes them worthy or registration in and of themselves.

I think that the most logical and effective approach to addressing the issue of criminals using "assault weapons" to commit these recent murders is not a restriction the guns themselves but better control of who gets access to them. In Massachusetts, just to get an LTC you must go through a local police, state police, and FBI check. I really don't have a problem with that. What may have to happen is a release of HIPPA information that would identify those with psychological issues. Though I've never sought such treatment, I fear that such intrusion would deter people from seeking such help out of fear that they'd lose their right to own and purchase arms. But let's face it, we must find a way to ensure that sane, law-abiding citizens can own arms while keeping them out of the hands of those who would use them for evil. We're at a crossroads, I believe, I just hope that our government will make logical decisions and not decisions based on emotionalism and reactionism.

Not to trivialize the 32 deaths in these 2 mass shootings, but they don't justify the legislation being brought forth when more people were killed by gunfire in Chicago, with its oppressive laws, in 2012 than Afghanistan.

All of this fit a bit too snug for another AWB, with even higher and more centric regulations.

Essentially the progressive liberals want too eliminate and regulate firearms much like a car. We pay taxes, we license ourselves and the automobile etc. Their goal is regulate, register and confiscate.

No matter the corruption or the lack of protection of your Constitutional rights, they just want what they want. And that is to disarm us, be damned the modicum in the written document which they took an oath too defend "Shall not be infringed"

It was and never will be about "children" Feinstien, Boxer and McCarthy have the most skin in the game. And they don't even own a firearm.....................Whoops, yes they do !! Feinstien has her own carry concealed permit in San Fran.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

It seems like there might be a confrontation brewing where the aggressors should consider deescalating the situation by ceasing their attacks on the 2nd Amendment and the law abiding gun owners.

We must attack back! But 'Attack' is such an ugly word............................

So we must smoke 'dope' and 'give some of our ground'............ so they can say we started to agree,,,,,,,,,,,,

Aint happening!

And for ALL OF YOU CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS that monitor this site for the 'oops, we had better pay attention to that.....' = you had better tell your 'Congress Critter' that we are coming for them on this issue! ................ just sayin! (and this SPECIFICALLY means you BROOKS).

Dear God in Heaven, I hope you're right. Let us not ignore the fact that we have very little conservative backbone in DC. Look at this fiscal cliff debacle. They're playing a role, and we are unimportant to them.

As I said in another thread, the nature of many gun owners is that were tend to be conservative, independent, and self-reliant. For this reason we don't "organize" well and tend to move to the end of the human spectrum that says "I'll take care of my own." However, it is essential to get involved politically to preserve the rights you value. How many here are a member of the NRA, National Association of Gun Rights, or some similar organization? I ask you, how much money have you invested in firearms, ammunition, gun safes, holsters, sighting systems, etc.? If you're like me, it's not a paltry amount. Then why not invest a bit more to "preserve" your (and your children's/grandchildren's) right to do so as well. Get involved and make your voices heard.

As I said in another thread, the nature of many gun owners is that were tend to be conservative, independent, and self-reliant. For this reason we don't "organize" well and tend to move to the end of the human spectrum that says "I'll take care of my own." However, it is essential to get involved politically to preserve the rights you value. How many here are a member of the NRA, National Association of Gun Rights, or some similar organization? I ask you, how much money have you invested in firearms, ammunition, gun safes, holsters, sighting systems, etc.? If you're like me, it's not a paltry amount. Then why not invest a bit more to "preserve" your (and your children's/grandchildren's) right to do so as well. Get involved and make your voices heard.

This right here should be carved into stone somewhere. Everyone who has any interest in firearms, whether that be for hunting, recreational shooting, self defense or sport had better understand that this isn't going to just go away on its own. Normally I have very little interest in doing much for the NRA other than paying my annual membership, but now, right now, we need the NRA to work harder than ever. This bill cuts to the very core of of the Second Amendment and if it passes, I can't even imagine what will happen next.

If you aren't a member of the NRA, join up. If you haven't written a letter or email to every state and federal representative that works for you, then do it now.

For Class III guns, sure, we can continue the Form 4, $200, and LEO....BUT for assault rifles & hand guns w/high capacity magazines???

The fact that you find the stupid crap in the first half of those quote to be perfectly acceptable tells me all I need to know. NONE of it is alright. The attacks by the federal government on your 2A rights began in earnest in 1934, when the NFA was passed in the first place. You absolutely cannot be ok with that and make a serious argument against anything else you say you oppose. Property rights are either respected, or they are not. Properly recognized property rights mean that ANYTHING you do that does not harm someone else, is perfectly permissible. Nothing less. Make sure your argument is consistent, and it will be far stronger.